Mr. ROY:

On division.

Main motion agreed to, on division, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Bradette in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive agreed to.

On the preamble.

Mr. ROY:

Mr. Chairman, when I resumed

my seat yesterday I was giving my reason for opposing the resolution, and was about to quote the words of the late Hon. Ernest Lapointe as they appear at page 2468 of Hansard for 1939:

852 COMMONS

War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply

We are not alone in that view. Australia has always been against conscription, South Africa will never have conscription, Ireland would never have conscription. I think I am true to my concept of Canadian unity when I say that I shall always fight against this policy; I would not be a member of a government that would enact it; and not only that, but I say with all my responsibility to the people of Canada that I would oppose any government that would enforce it. I agree with what was said yesterday by the leader of the opposition and the Prime Minister, and what was said by Mr. Bruce of Australia, that the time for expeditionary forces overseas is certainly past, and it would not be the most effective way to help our allies.

There cannot be any misunderstanding as to the Liberal government's external policy. Let us see where the evolution began. Speaking in New York on October 24, 1940, the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services (Mr. Macdonald) said:

We have sent men and ships and guns and planes, over the seas, and we shall send more and still more, so long as there is a single Canadian dollar left to be spent or a solitary Canadian citizen to take his stand in defence of freedom.

Was the government prepared to endorse the policy involved in that astonishing statement? Yes, it was. Here is what was said by His Excellency the Governor General in his speech from the throne one month later, as it appeared in Hansard of November 7. 1940:

The measures which will be submitted to you are such as seem necessary to my advisers for the welfare of the country, and for the prosecution of the war to the utmost of our strength.

That, without equivocation, is a confirmation of what the Minister of National Defence for Naval Services had said. As a matter of fact all this has materialized, and to the utmost extreme.

Coming back to the minister's statement, may I say that it shows a thorough upset in the external policy of the Liberal government. Why has there been such a reverse in the government's attitude? The following revelation by the Prime Minister will explain the whole matter. In his speech of January 26, 1942, as it is reported at page 46 of Hansard, this is what he taught us:

Every hon. member of this house knows that except for the assurance that, in the event of a European war, there would be no conscription for service overseas, this parliament would never have decided, in the immediate and unanimous manner in which it did, to stand at the side of Britain in the resistance of aggression, and the defence of freedom.

As we now have conscription, it is needless to say that it was a cheated parliament which accepted Canada's participation in the war. Continuing with this revelation the Prime Minister added:

Hon. members are also aware that if, at the time when Canada's participation in the war was challenged in an election in the province of Quebec by a government professing a different political faith, a like assurance with respect to service overseas had not been given in the name of the present government by the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, by the Minister of Public Works, and other Liberal leaders and members of this House of Commons from the province of Quebec, the verdict of the people of that province might have been wholly different.

_ It was also, Mr. Speaker, a cheated population that had not rendered a different verdict from the one rendered.

Now that we have had five years of applied conscription, of tremendous war expenditures, of gifts-more than three billions of dollars- to the governments of the empire, of ridiculous propaganda and of solid colonial servilism, let us see how the cycle of the Liberal party's imperialist evolution was completed. Speaking in the House of Commons on March 28, 1945, the Prime Minister said, as reported at page 299 of Hansard:

Hon. gentlemen opposite will find out when the opportunity comes-and I am thankful to say it will be given fairly soon-for them as well as the government to appear before the people of this country, whether or not the people of Canada feel that I have done my duty by the British commonwealth of nations, by the British empire, through every hour of the time I have been serving as Prime Minister of this country.

By that emphatic declaration the Prime Minister branded himself as a true imperialist and a straight Tory. I have spoken of evolution and of contradictions, but I wonder if those appellations are the right ones. I must confess I am rather lost. Would not the words "betrayal" apply more adequately?

Moreover, I have another very serious reason for opposing the resolution. I am given to believe that the verdict rendered by the electors of Grey North indicates a true opposition to conscription. Notwithstanding what has been so often said by members on both sides of the house, here is what was published in the Owen Sound Daily Sun-Times of January 23, 1945 on page 6. You can see from your place, Mr. Chairman, that most of this page is devoted to the Liberal party and General McNaughton's propaganda. To the right you will see a picture of the Minister of National Defence. I shall not go over all this political propaganda; it would take too much time. I am not using this for any political purpose; I am using it simply to make my point. This reads:

And the same Garfield Case told you at Rocklyn, January 16, "I'm still opposed to conscription as such but am for total mobilization of man-power and resources."

War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply

Men and women of North Grey, do you find this kind of double-talk reassuring-when your men overseas want reinforcements? Where is that "clear and emphatic policy of reinforcements" he talks about?

Case says plainly he is opposed to conscription. That means that if Case had the say-those 8,300 draftees would not be overseas now.

Let's have a man of action-not words and wind.

You want reinforcements, for your men overseas. McNaughton is getting your reinforcements. This is proven fact-not double-talk.

My conclusion is that the people of Grey North, having defeated the Minister of National Defence who was a champion of conscription, having elected the other candidate who was opposing conscription, have indicated that they are against conscription. They defeated the Minister of National Defence who still continues to impose conscription in this country against the will of the population of Ontario as well as of Quebec.

Mr. ROY:

It is published by authority of the North Grey Liberal Association.

Speaking about the participation of Canada in the war of the Pacific and of Asia the Prime Minister has outlined what was to be the importance of the proposed participation. He has said that conscription was not to be enforced, and so forth, and he concluded by saying that that was the government's intention if it were still in power after the election. There is an axiom that the past guarantees the future. If we can foresee the future through the past of the Liberal government we cannot depend upon those enunciations.

Canada has shed enough blood and has gone into debt sufficiently for a cause which brings about to-day conclusions far different from what we were told at the beginning of the war. That is, we have defended a cause and interests that we knew nothing about. We must not permit more Canadian blood to be shed in Asia or more debts to be imposed upon the Canadian people in order to make gifts to others. We must not permit more sacrifices to be made for the sake of interests which are not ours and which we do not understand. This is well proven by the hypocrisy which we have discovered in those international financial schemers from Basle who are responsible for this world-wide butchery out of which they are making commerce.

These are a few of the reasons I have for voting against the two billion dollar war appropriation. Rather I would suggest that the National Resources Mobilization Act of

1940 be repealed immediately and that all controls and rationing be done away with. I am opposed also to the maintenance by Canada of a force in Europe after the war and to the sending of troops to participate in the Pacific war. It is as clear as lime water that the people of Canada, who have already indicated a lack of confidence in the government in the last by-election, will not endorse its external policy at the coming general election. In the meantime let us keep this money for developing our country and doing all those good things outlined by the Prime Minister in his 1939 speech for the welfare of the Canadian people.

If Mr. Speaker had been in the Chair at this moment, and as I may not have the honour of addressing him again before the expiration of the nineteenth parliament, I would like to have congratulated him upon the distinguished manner in which he has occupied the Chair. I would like to have thanked him for the impartiality which has always characterized his decisions throughout the five years of this parliament. The dignity of his personality may very well be the only fine thing which will be left from this nineteenth parliament. I am sure that when future generations learn of all the incredible things that were done by this parliament they will be convinced that we have just gone through the most inauspicious and anti-Canadian episode in all Canada's history.

Mr. ROY:

I have to-day asked the Clerk ' of the House if the resolution which was called by the Clerk after the orders of the day was

War Appropriation-Munitions and Supply

before the committee as a whole resolution; and he said, "You are in order in making your point as to why you oppose it."

Mr. ROY:

I quote from page 2419 of Hansard of the session of 1939:

Assuming, it is urged, that Canadians like other people will put their own interests first, what do our interests demand, what amount of knight errantry abroad do our resources permit? Canada, it is contended, is not a country of unlimited powers: it has not the capacity to stand indefinite strains. We have tremendous tasks to do at home, in housing the people, in caring for the aged and helpless, in relieving drought and unemployment, in building roads, in meeting our heavy burden of debt, in making provision for Canada's defence, and in bringing our standards of living and civilization to the levels our knowledge now makes possible. There is no great margin of realizable wealth for this purpose; we must, to a greater or less extent, choose between keeping our own house in order, and trying to save Europe and Asia.

Just think of this statement and bear in mind that Canada has spent some twenty-five billion dollars for war purposes since 1939 and you cannot but hold your head in your hands. The next day the then Minister of Justice, Mr. Lapointe, made this statement as reported at page 2468 of Hansard of the session of 1939:

We are not alone in that view. Australia has always been against conscription, South Africa will never have conscription. Ireland would never have conscription. I think I am true to my concept of Canadian unity when I say that I shall always fight against that policy. I would not be a member of a government that would enact it-